War on Sugar?

[trappedslider]

As far as taxing it concerns, I don't know. Has taxing cigarettes stopped people from smoking? Or smoking less. Perhaps there have been studies showing that.

Actually yes..a number of studies have shown that smoking has gone due in part to the cost associated with it.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'd rather see efforts to educate people to use moderation etc, than laws to outlaw sugar. The issue doesn't seem strong enough to warrant making laws for it. I have no idea what that threshold is, but I like outlawing smoking (at least wherever I am).

Frankly, I don't think those kinds of efforts are sufficient. I think attaching a real cost is a nice middle ground; it's not like they're trying to ban sugar or even limit consumption to a particular amount. I think that if you look at obesity statistics (particularly child obesity), there is ample justification.

Sugar production is in fact heavily subsidized by the federal government (in the US anyway). The food marketplace is flooded with fat, salt, and sugar not just because of consumer demand but because of subsidies. It only makes sense to me to change the underlying finances to make the stuff in the grocery store contain less of certain excesses. And you can bet that if sugar is taxed, companies that make food will start competing to create appealing options with less of it, and consumers will take notice.

 

[sabrinathecat]

What several people has touched on it the idea of using the law and taxes as social engineering tools. That's a very dangerous and slippery slope.

I figured it would be an attempt to get at obesity. As has been pointed out, Sin Taxes hand prohibition laws have totally failed to discourage the activity they are meant to be decreasing/abolishing.

I would like to see someone audit the study before laws are passed.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

It's not SUGAR that's being taxed though. It's "sugary" drinks, and generally lumped in with sports and energy drinks which are considered objectionable not because of sweeteners but caffiene. Many soda formulas switched from real sugar to artificial sweeteners long ago for the simple expedient of cost. It's "things which have too many calories" that are being taxed by these laws. But that's really not the real motivation. The real motivation is MONEY.

They are implementing these taxes not because they are actually interested in lowering health care costs. If they were then they would be applying the money coming FROM these taxes directly to health care and address two aspects of the issue at once - discourage buying unhealthy drinks and food while helping to pay for the higher health costs unhealthy food and drinks bring with them. Individual laws MIGHT do that but I'll wager good money most of them just put money into a general fund. The money that will ultimately be derived from these taxes will be very substantial. Technically the money will be available still to apply to worsening health issues but it won't be - it will be used for other things and money applied to health care won't increase.

But you can't sell the idea of this kind of tax to people as easily based on "It'll be a really awesome source of new revenue." So instead it is framed as, "We're ONLY concerned with public health and the associated costs. The fat sums of money that we can then apply to whatever graft and waste government programs to get ourselves re-elected actually has nothing to do with it."

The twist is that the more they tax these things the more the government will come to RELY on the tax coming from these things and then if they actually DID reduce their purchase and use they will only drive the need to tax them ever more severely or stretch further to find something else to tax.

 

[Joker]

Actually yes..a number of studies have shown that smoking has gone due in part to the cost associated with it.

Do the studies show a direct correlation between higher prices and reduced use or could it also be a number of other factors such as a ban on advertising and a strong anti-smoking campaign?

 

[Kramodlog]

What several people has touched on it the idea of using the law and taxes as social engineering tools. That's a very dangerous and slippery slope.

Actually, saying it is dangerous is a slippery slope.

 

[Kramodlog]

Do the studies show a direct correlation between higher prices and reduced use or could it also be a number of other factors such as a ban on advertising and a strong anti-smoking campaign?

Here is a recent article than talks about such a study. I guess you coudl track down the study.

 

[sabrinathecat]

Yeah, anyone remember "new coke" in the 80s? A drink everyone hated, so coke cola brought back "classic coke" and later just coke? But they neglected to advertise that they weren't using sugar anymore, but corn syrup. (in fact, they kept saying it was the original formula, which was laughable, as the original formula contained opiates) Wasn't that nice? The "New Coke" was just something to distract people from the fact they were changing a principle ingredient, and keep them from noticing the taste change. (in theory)

 

[Umbran]

The "New Coke" was just something to distract people from the fact they were changing a principle ingredient, and keep them from noticing the taste change. (in theory)

That sounds like conspiracy theory wackiness, to me. They put up a whole new formula, paid the costs of an advertising campaign, and all, knowing and planning for it to fail (and the bad PR that goes with that failure), for a bait-and-switch? To use a slightly cheaper sweetener? Really?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

That sounds like conspiracy theory wackiness, to me.

Tinfoil hats are stylish. You should get one!

"War" is a pretty strong term for this sort of thing. Even "skirmish" goes a bit far.